Earthage 101

A creationist forum to discuss how old the Earth is...All about how God may have done it. No argument whether God did it. We all believe he did.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 21 ... 38, 39, 40  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 39 of 40]

951 None are Likely All Right on Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:39 pm

Off to the gym, Lord Fry, but make no mistake, I love you, even if I do not find your sarcasm and attitude very endearing here.

I will say, I can take a scoop of each. They are not in and of themselves internally inconsistent. I have said this over and over again, I am not completely sure which is the best answer.

However, both Hugh Ross and Gap Theory apologists agree the most likely answer is the Earth is billions of years old.

I don't have to "pick my poison" because they can technically both be true.

If you disagree, please offer me a detailed answer on why this is the case.

And you know what? I take God at His word as well! I am not watering down scripture; I just think it doesn't say what you think it says.

View user profile http://www.actionable.com

952 *** Pick YOUR Poison? *** on Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:17 pm

Brother Dave ...
I'm not feeling the Love?
I'm also a little confused as well ...
"Progressive Creation" (Hugh Ross) &
The "Gap Theory" are not harmonious
positions to believe in!
Please be sure to clarify belief in either
one or the other (or a scoop of each) ???
As for ME ...
I do NOT speak for God !!!
I just take Him at His Word !!!
*** NO INTERPRETATION NEEDED ***
I know it sounds Radical ... but hey!
That's Me! Wink
Love ya ...

Bret*

View user profile

953 I am More than Happy to Offer My Testimony on Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:40 pm

I have been very busy these past few days and unable to devote any time to writing here, but I will certainly offer my testimony relative to my beliefs reconciling the inerrant, literal Word of God with scientific observation. If I weren't so tired right now, I would write it now.

I do have one comment: Bret keeps asking and remarking about about how he thinks there are "no mistakes or errors in the Bible" and keeps asking me if there are mistakes or errors in the Bible.

Let me be direct in my answer. There are no mistakes or errors in the Bible. God's word is inerrant in its original manuscripts. That is the definition of inerrancy. I hold to that, and do not waver from it.

Which leads me to my question Bret; do you think we have to believe there are errors or mistakes in the Bible in order to believe the Earth is Old? If you do, let me make sure you understand, we hold to the inerrancy of scripture, and believe God's word is perfect. Is that clear?

Also, I will be honest with you Bret, let's leave out some of the hubris from the posts:

This may not be a Salvation Issue ... but
believing that God's Word needs a Press
Secretary (like Hugh Ross) to explain what
God REALLY meant to say ... is dangerous!

Isn't that what you are doing with your ardent young Earth position? Claiming to absolutely speak for God? For the record, I am the one who said I was an old Earther 5 days of the week and a young Earther 2 days of the week (and I was quoting JP Moreland by saying so). I don't frankly believe it is that important. If it was, Jesus would have talked about it all the time; but he didn't.

There is nothing dangerous about Hugh Ross and his honest attempt to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with what we observe in modern astrophysics. It is more dangerous to ignore what we take in through our 5 senses just to hold to a particular dogma about how old one thinks the Earth is because he chooses to read Genesis a certain way.

So I will soon post my story and then you can do your thing Bret:

I will answer EVERY question (as many times as you'd like) ...
in as much detail as you need on ANY topic!
Just start playing by the NEW rules handed down by Stu ...
and then I will explain "Knowledge" and the Flat Earth stuff.

Can't wait for you to give us all an epistomology lesson. I always wanted to know about all that flat Earth stuff.

Sorry for my sarcasm; it just seems to fit here.

View user profile http://www.actionable.com

954 It's Alive !!! on Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:02 pm

Praise God!
The Blog is BACK from the DEAD!
Lee ...
That was a Great testimony!
Looking forward to hearing how God
brought Dave into the Kingdom as well?
Come on in Boys ... the Water's fine! Smile

Bret*

View user profile

955 Why I Am An Old Earther on Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:29 pm

Bret, Stu and everyone,
Since we are reintroducing ourselves, here are my views and reasons to be an old earth evangelist.

study Consider my life as the flip side of the coin that Bret discussed. I was a scientist and engineer all of my life until age 50 when I became a true Christian because of a brilliant evangelist named Dr. Hugh Ross who spoke at my church. He pointed out to me for the first time, the many design characteristics built into the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the Big Bang that permitted this lovely world to exist. If it wouldn’t have been for him, I probably would still be a self-centered depressed individual heading toward oblivion and thinking there is nothing special about me or this planet earth. But by Divine appointment I happened to be at the right place and time when he made a guest appearance. Now I have a greatly modified perspective of how the universe works that is perfectly matched to the Bible. This was not an easy transformation to go through with all the new information that I had to process including the Bible and areas of science that I had never studied, but over the past ten years it has been well worth the investment of time and trouble. I am living proof of a person who became a Christian because of the concepts that science has taught me, not in spite of them. Why, because the intricate design of the natural world is overwhelming when it comes to convincing someone that this universe requires a designer. When I look at the complete picture of how Nature complements the Bible it strengthens my faith in the Almighty, and shows me the great intellect we are dealing with. A being so overwhelmingly intelligent that our best human minds can grasp just a few components of His design. He put together a system engineering masterpiece to create us, to grow us, and eventually have fellowship with us. I do not understand it all, but I understand enough to make a very convincing case that there must be a Father in Heaven or none of us would be here. I am passionate about teaching others what I know about science and how it supports belief in our Creator. For those that don’t know me, I should add that I have taught several courses at our church related to this general subject that cover several disciplines. I wish that you could see the universe from my perspective. To that end I would love to show you why science is your best friend and turn your attention to the real issues that undermine Christian evangelism. We need to work together for the advancement of Christianity, not to fight amongst ourselves over silly issues such as the age of the earth. What we really need to pull together on is how to get across the concept of design in the universe through any and all possible channels available to the lost masses. If we can’t reach a united front by working through this simple challenge of the age of the earth, knowing one side or the other is wrong about it, what hope is there in turning a spiritually confused world toward Christianity when they see us fighting among ourselves. I pray that God will give me the patience, wisdom, and grace to help all of you see God’s great light shining on the world through scientific investigation and growth in knowledge of His wonderful creation.
Lee



Last edited by InfinitLee on Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:42 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typos and grammar)

View user profile
Dave, & Lee,

Thanks for your replies.

There is no contradiction between a stretched universe, stretched starlight, and great distances.

Consider this example: I have a piece of elastic rope which I tie to a fixture at point A (Earth). Everyone located near point A can see the rope. I then stretch this piece of rope a great distance, to points B, C, and beyond, and I then stop at a great distance, and fix the rope to it's present location, D.
Because my rope is stretchable, I started at point A but ended far away at point D. Even though the rope is stretched, it is still visible at its first point, which is A or the planet Earth.

Just because the universe was small at one time & God stretched it out like a canvas tent, does not mean the light was not visible from Earth then or now.
As I said, this accounts for the red shift, Doppler effect, as well as great distances and millions of light years. God covered His scientific bases in scripture. The only thing we could not see now, is if a supernova happened last week. That would take eons to get here. No one is disagreeing with the distances.

Am I willing to change my position? Well, I'll answer that based on my earlier posts that I once was an avid old-earther that thought the young-earth guys where numb skull, scientifically-void robots that actually took the bible literally & believed the Genesis account. So yes, I am capable of changing my position, but not without real evidence no one here has been able to produce. Trouble is, the more I delved in to the science, the more I realized that the old earth position is built upon evolutionary standards and dating techniques that are as much guessing & assumptions as they are science.

For those of you that continue to say the bible supports an old earth philosophy, please explain with verses where you are getting this idea? There are none, in fact the bible points to a young creation. The gap theory does not count. The gap is an absence of scripture (and as I've said, the original language connects these verses with the Hebrew equivalent of 'and' which means there isn't supposed to be a gap there I'm interested in ACTUAL verses that are there, that point to an old earth). And the gap theorists fail to explain WHY a gap would exist, and why it is not referenced anywhere else in scripture, by an incredibly detailed & thoughtful heavenly Father.

In Christ,
Keith

View user profile

957 *** R.I.P. *** on Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:17 pm

No! ...
Not the King of Pop ...
But the apparent Death of this Blog?
Stu's bucket of cold water has seemingly
doused out the Flames?
I'm willing to continue ... no matter how
tightly shackled !!!
This may not be a Salvation Issue ... but
believing that God's Word needs a Press
Secretary (like Hugh Ross) to explain what
God REALLY meant to say ... is dangerous!
We're talking about the ALL powerful Creator
of the Universe here ... Not Joe Biden !!!
Praise God ...

Bret*

View user profile

958 Dave! ... it's your turn to Open-up? on Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:04 pm

Stu has ask us to try and be a little more civil with our posts!
He also ask us to explain (in detail) why we have each come
to our current stance on this Topic?
You continue to question my background as it applies to Science!
I've already explained to you ... that I know & understand that
of which I speak! If you need more detail ... it can be provided?
But 1st ... I think it only fair that you share with the rest of us
your Scientific background?
It would also be nice if you could give us your beliefs ...
Pre & Post Salvation ???
Do you believe that there are ANY mistakes or errors in the Bible?
Please explain your COMPLETE stance on this issue?
Theistic Evolution?
Progressive Creation?
or just the "Gap Theory"?
I will answer EVERY question (as many times as you'd like) ...
in as much detail as you need on ANY topic!
Just start playing by the NEW rules handed down by Stu ...
and then I will explain "Knowledge" and the Flat Earth stuff.
I would hope that Lee, Rob, and the rest of gang would also
answer these (or similar) questions about themselves?
Let's set the table first ...
then devour each course ...
ONE at a time!

Bret*

View user profile
Were you swayed by all the evidence that supported it in the scientific community? If so, what evidence was that?

I appreciate your post; it offers some additional insight into where your beliefs came from.

You said:

"After thoroughly examining EVERY position from ALL angles ...

The SIMPLEST explanation turned out to be the most Scientifically,

Theologically, & Philosophically SOUND explanation that made any

REAL sense. God means what He says !!! It HOLDS water ...

straight up !!! There are ZERO mistakes in the Bible !!!

So ...

my position on this issue can be completely "Explained" by a literal

reading of Genesis !!!"

This is very dififcult to reconcile with your posts. You couldn't have looked at it from all positions and all angles. If you don't believe in what modern science has to say about what it observes and calls real knowledge, you can't be serious about your "through investigation". You never bothered to learn the science behind the observations we reference.

Interpreting there to be a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 does not mean there is a mistake in the Bible. Right?

Finally you never answered my question about knowledge:

I have another important question to ask; what are we willing to call knowledge? Is what we observe knowledge? What is the test of whether something is knowledge or not, and when does it cross over into belief or commitment?

View user profile http://www.actionable.com

960 *** What's the Beef Stu? *** on Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:37 am

Hello ALL ...

I mean NO disrespect by my Subject Title ...
I've just always wanted to say that sentence
to someone named Stewart ... & you're my 1st Stu.
Stewart ... you are just WAY too nice & respectful
for even Ann Coulter to hit you with a sucker punch!
I do Stand Corrected about Stu's moderate position ...
as I now recall him saying that he was 2/7 Young Earth!
I guess by definition that the Moderator should be moderate?
And ... there you go Dave!
I've just admitted to a mistake.
Dave ... I'm married!
I haven't been right about almost anything since I got married!
(according to my Lovely Wife)
YES! ... my views on ANY topic could be wrong?
And ... many times are!
But ... I am at my highest level of confidence when I am
defending "God's Word" !!!
I am in TOTAL agreement with Stu ... that we EACH need to
explain to each other ... How we defend the Infallibility
of God's Word ... with our own confessed views on EVERYTHING !!!
As a Young Earth "Born Again" Christian without affiliation
to ANY orthodoxy ... please let me go first.

*******
I was an Old Earth Darwinian Evolutionist !!!

I accepted this view because of the fact that virtually EVERYONE

that I considered smarter than I was ... held this to be the enlightened view!

Outside of a few Back-woods snake handlers ...

this Scientific Philosophy was NOT EVER CHALLENGED !!!

I considered anyone who would allow their lives to governed by an

OBVIOUS book of Fairy-Tales ... to be complete MORONS !!!

After an overnight conversion to Christianity ... when in my honest

ignorance to who God really was ... and what he could do ...

I (sincerely) challenged God to forgive my sins, OPEN my eyes

to the TRUTH, and send me down His chosen path for my life.

I woke up the next morning ... a NEW Creation !!!

It was a day or two later ... when it hit me that I was now one of

those MORONS!

I began to ask my NEW Christian friends some VERY troubling

questions. (for me ... at least)

1). Do I have to start watching those Clowns on TBN ???

2). Do I have to believe in Fairy-Tales ???

(Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark, & the like)

3). How much MONEY am I REQUIRED to fork over to the Church ???

Thankfully ... God led me to the right people to ask these questions !!!

#1 ... Don't watch TBN ... until I was a little more grounded in God's Word!

(so I would be able to spot the 90% of them that are Wolves in Sheep's Clothing)

#2 ... There are NO Fairy-Tales in the Bible !!!

(just read it ... and BELIEVE IT)

#3 ... Do NOT give ANY money ... until God moves your Heart to do so!

(and ... WHERE to do so)

For me ... #1 & #3 were EXACTLY the answers that I was hoping to hear!

But ... #2 was a sour pill ... if there ever was one !!!

I knew that God was REAL ... because of the 180* that occurred in my

life ... OVERNIGHT !!! (there was NO time for Brainwashing)

Not happy with the thought of checking my (massive) Brain at the door ...

I was referred to an ICR seminar at the Church that coming weekend ...

& to check out some Bible Studies hosted by the CRI.

These were BOTH just starting points on my 20-year NON-Stop journey

into Apologetics ... with a focus on Creation vs. Evolution!

After thoroughly examining EVERY position from ALL angles ...

The SIMPLEST explanation turned out to be the most Scientifically,

Theologically, & Philosophically SOUND explanation that made any

REAL sense. God means what He says !!! It HOLDS water ...

straight up !!! There are ZERO mistakes in the Bible !!!

So ...

my position on this issue can be completely "Explained" by a literal

reading of Genesis !!!

I did NOT write it ... but I will defend it with every fiber of my being !!!

If God can NOT honor this ... then I believe we're ALL screwed?

Please let me apologize ... in advance ...

for my Passion on this issue!

I am a flawed sinful Man ... which can often times cause my Passion

to come across as Sarcastic & Pretentious !!!

If I cross the "Line" (and you know I will)... PLEASE call me on it !!!

I can take it!

Even if Dave wants to return a couple of cheap shots ... do it!

I deserve it !!! (actually ... don't we ALL ... to some extent?)

You guys can help me soften-up a little ...

and I'll help you thicken your skin (just a layer or two) ???

Jesus was tougher than Gandhi .......

and Gandhi never saved anyone!



In His Name ...





Bret*

View user profile

961 MODERATOR TIMEOUT on Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:58 am

This thread needs to be brought back in line with its original intent.

As Christ followers and Bible believers we are seeking to understand the mind of God -- not win an argument. That should be a humbling experience for each one of us. The purpose of this forum is to understand why and how other brothers hold differing opinions about the age of the earth. We are commanded in Scripture, at a minimum, to do this with "gentleness and respect." And as fellow believers to even take it to the next level -- to be "known by our love for one another."

I might not know how old the universe is from the Bible, but I do know what it says about seeking truth in grace. When the videotapes are played I am not going to be judged by how many atheists I beat into submission with clever argumentation (which is not even possible); nor by how many Christians I can attract to my interpretation of how and why God does things. But I do know I will be judged by how I have conducted myself with what is undeniably clear from the Scripture, and by how I've used my God given talents, time and resources.

So let's restart. There are three proposals on the table: young earth, old earth, and gap theory. Each has biblical support. Each has been widely accepted by Christians throughout the ages. Each has an evidential base. Going forward I would like to see those who want to continue under these guidelines put forth their reasons for how and why they arrived at their conclusions.

Bret asked if there were any "creation moderates" in the group. I am one. My position on the age of the earth/universe with Christians is that they can hold to any of the three theories that have been advanced to-date and still be considered orthodox. I encourage them not to change their position unless they become convicted to do so by Scripture and eminent reason; and then only if it has been confirmed by the Holy Spirit and prayer. When talking with non-believers I simply say, "some Christians believe either x, y, or z," so you have a wide range options on that topic. The real and pressing question, however, is "what do you believe about God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself?"

I am of the old earth persuasion and look forward to stating my case, but only under the above rules of engagement.

May God help us all.



Last edited by stu on Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:06 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : If I'm going to quote Scripture, the least I can do is quote it correctly!)

View user profile http://christperspectives.wordpress.com
Rolling Eyes If we logically analyze this view of creating the Heavens and stretching them out in one day to the present size of at least 13.7 billion light years so that everything really is big but very young, one very important but bad thing happens in astronomy: the Heavens go dark on us and we can't see very much of the light the stars and galaxies produce. They go over the event horizon according to astronomers and cosmologists. They may be out there shining away but because of the laws of Heaven and Earth including the speed of light being fixed per God's word according to Je 33:25, it will take billions of years for some of it to get to earth so that we could observe it. In fact, we wouldn't be able to see very much of the Milky Way Galaxy that is spectacularly displayed for us each night since we could only see back in time a few thousand years if the Heavens were stretched out as you state a few thousand years ago. We would only see a few million stars but not the milky bands of stars across its central plane.

If the stretching out really occurred as you suggest, the expansion rate would be so great that the stars themselves would cease to exist due to the high degree of space expansion. We are blessed by God to have a very small 10^-120 Cosmological Constant which keeps the Cosmos from expanding into smithereens (like ether). In fact this is one of the great paradoxes in cosmology: Why is the cosmological constant so small? Based on first principles of general relativity it would be expected to take on a much greater value! We can see the Heavens only because the cosmos is very old and because they haven't been expanded with too high of a rate. The Heavens have been designed to permit a perfect and informative view about how God makes everything work together for his glory. Yes, the Heavens have been stretched out but at a much smaller rate, that is compatible with life on earth and over a much longer time than you suggest and one that doesn’t violate God’s laws of nature.

Another thing that is being ignored by my brothers planning to join me or saving a place for me at the Lord’s Table is the history of the cosmos. If we somehow magically expand the cosmos to its present size and also get the light down to earth from all of the Heavens that we can presently see, how do you explain the apparent history of space objects such as nebula, brown dwarfs, black holes, neutron stars, and solar system formation if it happened in a 24 hour pop into existance and stretch operation. All of the objects that we see in space take a long period of time to develop according to the laws of physics. Or are you suggesting that the laws of physics are suspended during the stretching operation also? This would really fly in the face of God’s Words to Jeremiah! I am really curious if you have actually thought the physics of this through carefully. If you have a tenable theory of how this could be done please present it to us. I am just trying to logically analyze your view.


Lee
By the way, I am planning to join you there at the Table, I just was trying to make the point that Christian grace was rapidly evaporating beyond the event horizon. I am encouraged to see that we are beginning to try to learn something from one another. If you have an alternative scientific model of the universe that makes sense to us scientific thinkers, I would love to investigate it and possibly correct my views based on the facts. I consider myself to be a sewer intellectual as well. Best Regards Brothers!

View user profile
First, if my pose was offensive to you or Bret, I apologize. I thought we were vigorously debating.

Can we all admit one thing? Each of us MAY be wrong about our position. Bret and Keith, will you at least admit you might be wrong, and God could have made everything longer ago than you think? If I heard some humility, it would go a long way for me. I will admit the Earth could be Young, even if I don't think that is the best answer.

How about it? Will you please answer THIS question?

I have another important question to ask; what are we willing to call knowledge? Is what we observe knowledge? What is the test of whether something is knowledge or not, and when does it cross over into belief or commitment?

Please answer this question as well. If we don't have the basis for knowledge, we will never get anywhere.

Concerning the "stretching out of the heavens", God could have stretched it out in an instant, placing everything very far apart in one moment. How do you use this to explain away the light that would have needed to be in transit when everything was created? I guess I fail to see how this would make our arguments invalid.

The body existed at some point in time, and we can see their light. If he placed them out there in an instant, he would have also had to place the light they generated en route to us when he stretched out the heavens as well. Why would he do that? I believe God stretched out the heavens because he says he did. But I don't understand how this gets around the issue of star light.

My first question is most important; can we all at least agree that we would be wrong?

View user profile http://www.actionable.com
Dave,

I don't see anything even remotely offensive in Bret's post to warrant your reply?

I too am dismayed, that some are just "airing arguments" and not responding to the valid points & points that many of us have posted here, however its the old earthers that are in this camp as well.

Carl Sagan was an atheist. It does not matter how smart the guy was if he ignores God. The bible says people WILLINGLY ignore the truth when they choose not to believe...in a creator.
The bible also says "knowledge puffeth up". Pride is a huge a problem, the original sin. The bible also states that in the end days there will be scoffers who state all things were as they were from the beginning, denying the truth. Sounds like uniformitarianist thinking to me.

Also, I do not believe anyone ever addressed my post about the LORD "stretching out the heavens". There are over TEN references to the LORD stretching the heavens in the bible. Isn't this a peculiar word that the author chose to use?
This "stretching" would explain the incredible distances, the red shift, and all the other so called "proofs" that you old-earthers site as evidence for an old universe. A large universe does not mean an old universe! Millions of light-years in distance does not mean millions of years! Yes the universe is big, yes the light years & distances are legit! This does not prove anything other than the size. The "stretching" scriptures blow all the old earth arguments of astronomy away.

"The Hebrew word for stretched is natah. It does not mean an explosion, a flinging out, or the type of stretching that encounters increasing resistance, as with a spring or rubber band. Natah is more like the effortless reaching out of one’s hand."

As Rodney King would say, "can't we all just get along? "
afro

Keith

View user profile

965 Still Making No Sense, Lord Fry on Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:29 am

God Created the Stars already visible to Earth from Day*4* !!!
Why is this Deceitful ???

So ... would some of you please "Park Your Parallax"!
Like I have stated before ... I believe that MOST Stars are
more than 10k light years away !!!

Why is this deceitful you ask? Because it makes no sense at all; it makes it as though God created an illusion that it was there before it was. THAT would be deceitful. Is that really the most likely conclusion? If you believe the stars are more than 10,000 light years away, and you want to not make God an illusionist, then you have to invent new science to account for your explanation. All because you want to use an interpretation of Genesis that is unnecessary.

If you want to create a new brand of science that allows for all of what you want to believe so you can hold on to your particular interpretation of Genesis, you are more than able to. But you can't expect to receive much in the way of respect for your reasoning.

I and many others have explained very clearly how Genesis is not a "crappy fairy tale" just because it doesn't comform to your particular exegesis. There are many, conservative, God-surrendered intelligent men who have written systematic theology textbooks being used at major seminaries who disagree with you. Just know that, and that you don't have to be a part of the "Carl Sagan Theological Society" to believe as we do.

I am pretty sure you don't believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, do you? Does't that make that part of the Bible a crappy fairy tale as well by your analysis?

Final Question: Do you believe it is maybe, possible that you are wrong about this? Are you absolutely certain there is no way the Earth is older than you believe it is?

View user profile http://www.actionable.com

966 A deceitful God? on Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:07 am

Wow ... !!!
Another Old-Timer joins the Blog. Very Happy
Hey! ... is this the Lee that said he would rather
go to Hell if Keith & I find our way through the
back-door to Heaven? Sad
That's O.K.!
If God takes me home before you ... I'll still
save you a Good seat at the Master's Table! Wink
Maybe I haven't been clear enough about the
whole "Stellar Parallax" issue?
Parallax works very well for the close stuff!
BUT ... it is often referenced as proof of an Old
Universe when asked "How do we know how far
away the Stars really are?".
So ... would some of you please "Park Your Parallax"! Sleep
Like I have stated before ... I believe that MOST Stars are
more than 10k light years away !!! affraid
Just stop being Deceitful about how these distances
are ESTIMATED !!!
You guys are smart enough to know that there are
many Dim-Stars that are CLOSER to Earth than some of
the Brighter Ones! (Proved using Parallax!)
And YES! ... even the Blinking Ones too!
Strong Gravitation (i.e. Black-holes)... can bend or even
absorb light that travels too close to it!
Stellar Dust, Electromagnetic Fields, & the Varying rates
and trajectories of these moving sources can greatly DISTORT
the Brightness, Spectral Lines, & Red-Shifts that we
observe from such great distances!
Why can't Scientists admit that they just might be wrong
every once and awhile ??? pale
EVERY 20-years Science Books have to be thrown away
because more than half of the Data has been "Proven"
WRONG by Scientists (that are SURE that THEY got it right)...
only to be thrown away in another 20-years when the
same thing happens again & AGAIN !!! Arrow
God Created the Stars already visible to Earth from Day*4* !!!
Why is this Deceitful ???
I think that Starting out His Infallible Word with a Crappy
Fairy-Tale would be downright Foolish ... let alone Deceitful?
ANYONE can read His Word and understand what He is Clearly
saying about His Creation!
Only a Handful of Pretentious Nerds (myself included)...
truly understand why we're told by Scientists that God & the
Bible can NOT be trusted !!!
95%+ of these Geniuses believe that EVERYTHING created
itself out of NOTHING ... because there is NO God !!! Twisted Evil
Cheers ...

Bret*

View user profile

967 Let's Not Condemn Astronomy So Quickly on Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:08 am

Shocked There are lots of points of light in the Heavens that can't be measured by parallax (angular shift in position while the earth orbits the sun). These points of light are farther away since there is an immeasurable angular change with present technology. Bret is right that our scientists may not be able to measure parallax distances much farther than a few thousand light years using parallax in the near future. However, what do we make of the remainder of the Heavens the vast majority, 100s of trillion of points of light, do we just dismiss them? What do we make of the spectra they emit? They match the spectra of our sun's light but much weaker in intensity. We measure light in our labs and know that it travels at c 3x10^8 m/sec. We also know that its intensity drops as the square of the distance. Are you saying that these laws of physics are no longer valid in space? Are you saying that a point of light on the other side of our galaxy that has a similar spectra as our sun and has a magnitude many orders of ten less than our sun is not really a star like our sun? That it really didn't exist three hundred thousand years ago when the light supposedly left its surface but only has existed for 6 thousand years and the light from it was distributed throughout space-time to make it look like it has been burning for over 5 billion years? How about exploded stars then that left their nebula imprint 50 thousand light years away that we are just now seeing in our time through the Hubble telescope. Did they not exist some 100 thousand years ago nor blow up some 55 thousand years ago, and nor leave an element trace that we can examine that show us what gases and other elements that it was made of? Since the star never existed and for that matter neither did the nebula, since only 6 thousand years of history only needs be recorded, it seems by your logic only light in space needs to exist to deceive us all into believing that a very large creation is around us. If everything was made just 6 thousand years ago, then a lot of what we are seeing through the Hubble and other telescopes is a mirage and never really existed. Sorry guys but I can’t believe that you think that our Lord would permit that level of deception on his Children. He is not a deceiver!

View user profile

968 Now we are getting somewhere! on Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:01 pm

Don't worry, I won't cry. I played football too. But I meant what I said about science.

You are also trotting out old arguments as well. I will post later when I have time today or tomorrow on why the heavenly bodies appear in the creation after the Earth [became] formless and empty. I believe it is a matter of perspective. Just as Daniel and other prophets were shown visions they documented, I don't believe God dropped a tablet on Moses when it comes to Genesis. He showed him what happened. When he did, he did it from Earth's perspective. If that was the case, these bodies would have appeared in the canopy after he revealed the light of day and night. I will get into the details in my later post.

The narrative concerning the creation of man is God's, which he gave Moses as well.

View user profile http://www.actionable.com

969 No more Hail Marys !!! on Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:40 pm

Brother Dave ... & others ...

In my defence ... I must confess that I am NOT
used to debating with others Christians about
Secular Topics!
Scripture fights ... YES!
Creation vs. Evolution with God HATERS ... Yes!
But this convolution of the two seems Alien to me!
Biting, Spirited, and even Brutal Debates with
those who pretentiously go out of their way to
undermine and viciously attack the Bible & Christianity
is the Calling that God has laid on my Heart ...
soon after my Damascus road conversion ... some
20+ years ago !!! I love you
Trying to out Hug or out Love my fellow Brothers
is just NOT my style.
It is not my intent to hurt anyone's feelings in
this debate ... but I believe that we are ALL grown
MEN here ... and Men are NOT suppose to cry when
they are tackled?
Flag Football is for Women & Children! Wink
To continue with the Football analogies ...
let me suggest that we ALL stop launching the
Hail Marys !!!
I don't believe that we have any Creation Moderates
in our Group (if so ... PLEASE speak up!) ???
So conversions seem unlikely between stances.
The Integrity of God's Word vs.
The Integrity of Man's Science!
Let's take these issues one at a time.
Dave ... I am all too familiar with the arguments
that you have cut-&-pasted to the Blog.
YES ... I did read them! study
I'm probably one of few people here that does
read EVERYTHING in ALL of the posts ... no matter
how ridiculously long and redundant they might be!
My biggest problem with your GAP-Theory is ...
God said that He Created the Dry Land on Day *3* !!!
Then the Sun, Moon, & The STARS on Day *4* !!!
So ... if your Theory is correct ... then ONLY
the Water & maybe the EMPTY vacuum of Space
would be Billions & Billions of years old!
Got any Iron-Clad methods for testing these? Cool

Bret*

View user profile
Bret,I am a broken record because to deny the efficacy of these dating techniques shows a genuine disinterest in knowledge that was honestly obtained. It is foolishness to try to convince an unbelieving world that they should believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior if we aren't willing to accept solid science.

Have you read the material? I doubt it. I have to say, if you are not interested in educating yourself on the material, and fail to see the simple fact there is room between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 for a gap to have occurred (even if you don't think it is the best explanation), then there is little point in continuing the dialog. It has become a place where you can just air arguments, and justify a contentious spirit. Your sarcasm can be funny; but when you say things like what you said about the "Carl Sagan Theological Party Line", it shows you have little interest in really finding out the truth.

By your reasoning here, many people were put to death by the church for heresy, making claims about the physical world that the Church at the time said disagreed with the Bible, like the Earth revolving around the Sun. Now, we know that to be fact. It seems you would have been in the crowd cheering on the process had you been there.

I have to call it as I see it.

View user profile http://www.actionable.com
I'm happy to see that some fire has returned to the Debate!
But ... just because a "Christian" wrote an article about his
acceptance of the Scientific Party Line on Carl Sagan Theology
doesn't mean that the issue is settled!
The distances to our Planetary neighbors are calculated using
Parallax ... which is quite reliable.
The Red-shift that I believe Stu was referring to ... is used to
determine the rate that a Star is moving away from us?
(Not how far it is already away from us)
& ... to my like-minded friend Rob ...
I believe that God is Eternal ... and exists outside of His
Creation (the Universe) ... which is Finite!
Remember ... the Earth is at least a Day older than the Sun,
Moon, and the Stars !!! study

Bret*

View user profile
Rob, in your post you make my point exactly. We can't know for sure the age of the Earth. But I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the experiments that have been done to estimate the Earth's age. This isn't some kind of guess; if it is, then we are just guessing at how far the Sun is from the Earth, or how far Mars is from the Sun. We can know these distances with accuracy because of scientific methods we employ to take measurements.

The same applies to the age of the Earth. Radiometric dating uses multiple parent-daughter isotopic pairs to determine the age of a particular rock. They frequently agree with each other. This method of dating is very accurate and reliable.

I asked before, please read this Christian article on radiometric dating. It is written by scientists who are Christian and explain it very well. If you choose not to read it or consider it, I will submit these posts are a waste of time.

RadioMetric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Please review this and let me know what you think. This is not evolutionary secular scientist rhetoric.

From the article:

Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems?

We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:

There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.

Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.

The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
The last three points deserve more attention. Some Christians have argued that something may be slowly changing with time so all the ages look older than they really are. The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. One could consider that time itself was changing if that happened (remember that our clocks are now standardized to atomic clocks!). And such a thing would have to have occurred without our detection in the last hundred years, which is already 5% of the way back to the time of Christ.

Beyond this, scientists have now used a "time machine" to prove that the half-lives of radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient events from a long way away. The time machine is called the telescope. Because God's universe is so large, images from distant events take a long time to get to us. Telescopes allow us to see supernovae (exploding stars) at distances so vast that the pictures take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to arrive at the Earth. So the events we see today actually occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. And what do we see when we look back in time? Much of the light following a supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives.

Some individuals have suggested that the speed of light must have been different in the past, and that the starlight has not really taken so long to reach us. However, the astronomical evidence mentioned above also suggests that the speed of light has not changed, or else we would see a significant apparent change in the half-lives of these ancient radioactive decays.

Doubters Still Try

Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.

Some people have tried to defend a young Earth position by saying that the half-lives of radionuclides can in fact be changed, and that this can be done by certain little-understood particles such as neutrinos, muons, or cosmic rays. This is stretching it. While certain particles can cause nuclear changes, they do not change the half-lives. The nuclear changes are well understood and are nearly always very minor in rocks. In fact the main nuclear changes in rocks are the very radioactive decays we are talking about.

View user profile http://www.actionable.com

If you were familiar with the science surrounding the countless numbers of independent experiments that all agree, you would feel differently about the weight of the evidence.



I think we are back to the drawing board here. I have not been satisfied by these experiments. Furthermore, I don't think there have been experiments that have established the age of the universe. Using the definition of "experiment" (a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.) I don't think one can perform an experiment to calculate the age of the universe.
We understand we can count the rings in a tree to determine its age, provided each year had a proper growth "season." We can estimate the age of mammals by using comparisons of bone growth. However, we cannot estimate the age of the universe because we have nothing to provide a reasonable comparison. This is true with the earth as well. Many of the so-called experiments are just unscientific guesses.
I think, frankly, there have been countless experiments that have revealed the following: we can’t be sure about the age of the earth, especially giving consideration to God’s unlimited and incomprehensible creative powers. We can speculate and some of our speculation is plausible. But proof . . . we have none!
However, if it were that important to God, he would have installed time-lapse cameras that took an authenticated, date-stamped picture every 10,000 years or 100,000 so we could see what transpired over time. Even if “man” has been around for a few million years (which, again, if not supported by credible evidence) why would he earth sit void for 4.998 billion years. That contradicts the notion of stewardship set forth in the scriptures. (Could you imagine how upset the master would be if he returned 4.998 billion years later and the servant dug up the talents . . . and then, to make matters worse, couldn’t even prove their age!)
Knowing what we know about God, he created a turn-key operation, complete with a food chain (anticipating the fall). There is no sensible reason why he did that over a long period of time, particularly when he had the ability to create everything in six days.
I do think there are countless examples of God’s ability, that are far superior to man’s attempts to convert a guess about the age of the earth into a scientific theory, let alone a fact.
Let, as Lord Fry described it, the rumble continue! I like to read all that you have to say, but again, despite the obvious brilliance of many of you, I think God is chuckling at how little we understand His ability. He is pleased, however, that (hopefully/prayerfully) we understand His (also incomprehensible) love.
Best regards,
Rob
pirat

View user profile
Rob wrote:I really like Lord Fry and can't wait to meet him! I think he is totally right on!
However, my policy is NEVER to disagree with Stu! Since he can be wrong .00001 % of the time and still be on my Mt. Rushmore of men of integrity and character, I am going to stay in the "young earth" camp.

Let's talk about proof.

The first reading of Genesis is strongly suggestive of a young earth. Men of science disagree, but who can prove their position.
If we start with the young earth suggestion of Genesis 1, the burden of proof is on those who would assert that the meaning is different than that which the intended audience of Genesis (e.g., IQ = 100) would understand from the text.

Why is it not possible for there to have been a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2:
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

The footnote for Genesis 1:2 says "or possibly became [formless and empty]"
Why "became" and why "now"? Surely not absolutely definitive, but opens up the possibility, does it not?


As such, the question remains, "to a reasonable degree of scientific probability, is it more likely that the earth is old, based upon a review of the evidence?"

If you were familiar with the science surrounding the countless numbers of independent experiments that all agree, you would feel differently about the weight of the evidence.



Frankly, all of the theories put forth lack legal foundation to convince this juror that the old earth position is, more likely than not, correct.
The problem is if we agree that God can create a star with its associated fully transmitted light rays (e.g., if the surface of the earth was created as if it had been warmed by the sun for a period of time) then there is difficulty finding any credible evidence of "old" things.
As such, when I see proof that God created something and proof that particular "something" aged (absent God's interference) a million years, then I would be convinced.

You have already created your own conclusion here. If that is the criteria, then you will not find it, because no one was there. But you don't have to sacrifice orthodoxy to be old earth. See the scripture above!

So far, everything I have seen that suggests “something” is a million years old, has, at its foundation for calculation, a "circular" reference.
As such, my previous claim that it can't be proven causes me to conclude that the "old" earth position fails to meet the burden of proof. Therefore, I stick with the simple, straight-forward reading of Genesis.

Once again, I assert that a straightforward reading of Genesis doesn't imply the Earth is young or old, but leaves open the possibility for either. The physical evidence is overwhelminly in favor of an old earth.

Of course, the age of the Universe is a different question. I think by definition (Universe: the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm) God is contained in the “universe.” God has “always” existed. As such, the age of the universe is incalculable. Infinite may be a better explanation, but the notion of infinity is a mathematical fiction (possibly derived in an attempt to understand an incomprehensible God).



Last edited by BrokenMan on Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:22 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Grammar fixes)

View user profile http://www.actionable.com

975 Let's talk about proof! on Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:46 am

I really like Lord Fry and can't wait to meet him! I think he is totally right on!
However, my policy is NEVER to disagree with Stu! Since he can be wrong .00001 % of the time and still be on my Mt. Rushmore of men of integrity and character, I am going to stay in the "young earth" camp.
Let's talk about proof.
The first reading of Genesis is strongly suggestive of a young earth. Men of science disagree, but who can prove their position.
If we start with the young earth suggestion of Genesis 1, the burden of proof is on those who would assert that the meaning is different than that which the intended audience of Genesis (e.g., IQ = 100) would understand from the text.
As such, the question remains, "to a reasonable degree of scientific probability, is it more likely that the earth is old, based upon a review of the evidence?"
Frankly, all of the theories put forth lack legal foundation to convince this juror that the old earth position is, more likely than not, correct.
The problem is if we agree that God can create a star with its associated fully transmitted light rays (e.g., if the surface of the earth was created as if it had been warmed by the sun for a period of time) then there is difficulty finding any credible evidence of "old" things.
As such, when I see proof that God created something and proof that particular "something" aged (absent God's interference) a million years, then I would be convinced.
So far, everything I have seen that suggests “something” is a million years old, has, at its foundation for calculation, a "circular" reference.
As such, my previous claim that it can't be proven causes me to conclude that the "old" earth position fails to meet the burden of proof. Therefore, I stick with the simple, straight-forward reading of Genesis.
Of course, the age of the Universe is a different question. I think by definition (Universe: the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm) God is contained in the “universe.” God has “always” existed. As such, the age of the universe is incalculable. Infinite may be a better explanation, but the notion of infinity is a mathematical fiction (possibly derived in an attempt to understand an incomprehensible God).

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 39 of 40]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 21 ... 38, 39, 40  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum